Hamilton v. Levy
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Allen Leroy Hamilton filed a complaint for sum of money and damages, with a prayer for preliminary attachment, against respondents David Levy and Fe Quitangon, and one Pablo de Borja. The trial court issued a writ of preliminary attachment, leading to the seizure of a Piper aircraft allegedly owned by respondent David Levy. Subsequently, Ramon Araneta filed an Affidavit of Third-Party Claim asserting ownership of the aircraft by virtue of a sale from W.E.L. Phils., Inc., represented by respondent Levy. Procedural History: The trial court declared the respondents in default for failing to file a responsive pleading. While proceedings continued ex parte, respondents filed a Special Appearance to Question the Jurisdiction of the trial court. Following the denial of this appearance, respondents filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals, challenging the trial court's jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals granted this petition, ordering the dismissal of the case due to improper service of summons, a decision later affirmed upon denial of a motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner seeks review of the Court of Appeals' decision, arguing that the appellate court committed grave abuse of discretion. The petition raises several assignments of error, including the untimely filing of the certiorari petition, the failure to require a motion for reconsideration before filing the certiorari petition, issues with the certification against non-forum shopping, and the dismissal of the case despite alleged actual knowledge of the proceedings by the respondents. The core of the dispute revolves around the validity of the substituted service of summons upon the respondents.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in granting the respondents' Petition for Certiorari that was filed beyond the sixty (60) day-prescribed period. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion by not observing the requirements of "plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law" before granting the respondents' Petition for Certiorari. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the respondents' Petition for Certiorari even if the certification against non-forum shopping was executed by one who was not a party to the case. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Civil Case No. 8696 even if the respondents, particularly David Levy, had actual knowledge of the filing of said Civil Case No. 8696. Whether summons was properly served upon the respondents.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed in toto.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the Petition for Certiorari: The Court held that the 60-day reglementary period for filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, Section 4 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure does not commence to run if summons was improperly served. Since the core issue was the propriety of the service of summons, and respondents claimed they were no longer at the address where service was made, the timeliness of their petition depended on the validity of that service. Therefore, their petition filed four months after receiving the questioned order was not necessarily filed out of time if the service itself was defective. On the exhaustion of remedies: The Court disagreed with the petitioner's assertion that respondents failed to exhaust plain, speedy, and adequate remedies. It reasoned that filing a Motion for Reconsideration or a Motion to Lift Order of Default could have been construed as voluntary submission to the court's jurisdiction, which was precisely what respondents were questioning. Furthermore, the rule requiring a motion for reconsideration admits of exceptions, such as when the assailed act is patently illegal or performed without or in excess of jurisdiction, as was the case concerning the trial court's jurisdiction over the respondents' persons due to alleged improper service of summons. On the certification against non-forum shopping: The Court found that respondents had good reasons for not personally executing the certification against non-forum shopping. They explained that they were both abroad when the petition was filed, which constituted reasonable cause for exemption from the requirement of personal execution. Dismissing the petition on this ground would have denied them the opportunity to question the trial court's lack of jurisdiction over their persons, thus denying them due process. On actual knowledge of the case: The Court noted that respondents' "Supplemental Manifestation" was filed after they had already filed their petition for certiorari. This manifestation, along with their earlier Special Appearance and subsequent Manifestation informing the trial court of the pending certiorari petition, clearly indicated their continued questioning of the trial court's jurisdiction. The Supplemental Manifestation did not seek any direct affirmative relief from the trial court, thus not constituting a voluntary submission to its jurisdiction. On the validity of the service of summons: The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' finding that summons was not validly served. Citing Sections 6 and 7 of Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court emphasized that personal service is the general rule, and substituted service is only permissible when personal service cannot be effected within a reasonable time. The Sheriff's Return did not state any reason why personal service could not be effected, nor did it detail efforts made to serve the defendants personally before resorting to substituted service by leaving copies with their secretaries. The Court stressed that substituted service is extraordinary and must be strictly followed, and failure to comply with its requirements renders the service ineffective and prevents the court from acquiring jurisdiction over the person.
Main Doctrine
Substituted service of summons must strictly comply with the requirements of the Rules of Court, including stating the impossibility of personal service and the circumstances thereof in the proof of service. Failure to do so renders the service ineffective and prevents the court from acquiring jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.